An image tells us a story, whether it has detailed facts or not When we think of a documentary the first thing that comes to mind is usually a film. Beyond that we typically think of writers and photographers, especially those of the journalistic type, as documentary artists, but that's not necessarily all that's out there. Painters were definitely the documentary artists before photography was invented. Artists such as Raffaele Carelli and Johann Moritz Rugendas were painters who documented the landscapes they visited. In fact, the Hudson School was probably the dominant American documentary art style of the 1800s as they brought back vast works depicting the mostly unseen American west to the masses on the east coast.
Documentary arts relies on a definition that's similar to this one given by Mimi Fine Arts: "Any artwork the purpose of which is to present facts objectively, without inserting fictional matter, recording and/or commenting on some content, often political or social, by accumulating factual detail." That's a fine definition, except that it's completely wrong on one point: objectivity doesn't exist in that way simply because bias is inherent in how we perceive things.
(click above to read more)
Documentary arts relies on a definition that's similar to this one given by Mimi Fine Arts: "Any artwork the purpose of which is to present facts objectively, without inserting fictional matter, recording and/or commenting on some content, often political or social, by accumulating factual detail." That's a fine definition, except that it's completely wrong on one point: objectivity doesn't exist in that way simply because bias is inherent in how we perceive things.
(click above to read more)
This painting is documentary in nature, and it's biased, too. George Berkeley is largely responsible for creating subjective idealism as we know it today, and later Immanuel Kant for transcendental idealism. Gottlob Frege is Kant's counterpart, and essentially the founder of objectivism, which while not being the same thing as objectivity does require a level of commitment to something being something, or at least a commitment to objectivity. All claim objectivity at their heart, but the definition used above only refers a truth as being unbiased, which is counter to idealism.
What's important to remember here is that it's impossible to be unbiased, and it's impossible to present facts objectively. Everything we see, feel, touch, hear, taste and then how we report on those things is based on our interpretation in that moment. Journalism schools tries to pound into their students' heads that the basis of news is objectivity, or the statement of facts. I know because I graduated from one. But even the straight headline of "Car Accident Kills Two on Main Street" is biased. How many cars were there? Did the weather affect driving conditions? What about speed, alcohol, or a heart attack? By adding or not adding any piece of information leads towards bias in a direction, whether intentional or not.
What's important to remember here is that it's impossible to be unbiased, and it's impossible to present facts objectively. Everything we see, feel, touch, hear, taste and then how we report on those things is based on our interpretation in that moment. Journalism schools tries to pound into their students' heads that the basis of news is objectivity, or the statement of facts. I know because I graduated from one. But even the straight headline of "Car Accident Kills Two on Main Street" is biased. How many cars were there? Did the weather affect driving conditions? What about speed, alcohol, or a heart attack? By adding or not adding any piece of information leads towards bias in a direction, whether intentional or not.
Transparency is an element of objectivity, but not all transparency is the same Imagine the same headline written as "Two Die in Accident on Main Street." Both headlines can easily be attributed to the same event, but they can also be linked to two completely different events as well. There's no way to know without adding information, and the information that gets added naturally sways how one feels about the event. Add in limited space and time to tell the story and the story gets more biased.
It's this that I have a problem with that definition of the Documentary Arts. Yes, I get the point and the spirit behind the Documentary Arts, and the approach is admirable if the artist's intent is to be as unbiased as possible. But there's a very serious disservice being done by suggesting that "presenting facts objectively" equals some level of truth. The truth is that whatever is reported is whatever the artist wants the public to see and hear. Obscuring this leads to greater ignorance over greater intelligence.
It's this that I have a problem with that definition of the Documentary Arts. Yes, I get the point and the spirit behind the Documentary Arts, and the approach is admirable if the artist's intent is to be as unbiased as possible. But there's a very serious disservice being done by suggesting that "presenting facts objectively" equals some level of truth. The truth is that whatever is reported is whatever the artist wants the public to see and hear. Obscuring this leads to greater ignorance over greater intelligence.
This is flamenco, whether one believes it is or not Why does this matter to my work, and why am I writing about this now? My project to document the modern-day flamenco community off-stage is documentary in nature, and I will be approaching this project as if I'm painting snapshots in time. Those snapshots will come from my interaction with the community. It will not be unbiased. I will choose images that I feel tell a story, and I will frame these images in such as way as to generate an emotional response. Whether or not that response is what people want to see or hear is irrelevant, but I'm not going to pretend that this project is unbiased and a gathering of so-called "factual detail", because like objectivity, facts are completely debatable. And by extension I will not remove the documentary descriptor that I use to describe this project. It is documentary, but like all things documentary, it won't be unbiased like some would have you believe.
This is important for me to state this because I want people to know where I'm coming from and how I'm approaching this project. I will walk from village to village historically important to flamenco and I will document what I see today, and I'll call that flamenco, and it will be flamenco, and it will be a part of the Documentary Arts as well whether the paintings are figurative or abstract. Yes, even abstract is documentary and a presentation of the "facts", as they may be, because if there is nothing to report then that can still be reported. It's the same with chaos. The truth is what one experiences, how one interprets, and what and how one reports this. By dumbing down Documentary Arts as something pure and without bias is irresponsible at best. I won't do that. You can bet I'll tell you what I experience, and it will be a fine addition to the Documentary Arts.
This is important for me to state this because I want people to know where I'm coming from and how I'm approaching this project. I will walk from village to village historically important to flamenco and I will document what I see today, and I'll call that flamenco, and it will be flamenco, and it will be a part of the Documentary Arts as well whether the paintings are figurative or abstract. Yes, even abstract is documentary and a presentation of the "facts", as they may be, because if there is nothing to report then that can still be reported. It's the same with chaos. The truth is what one experiences, how one interprets, and what and how one reports this. By dumbing down Documentary Arts as something pure and without bias is irresponsible at best. I won't do that. You can bet I'll tell you what I experience, and it will be a fine addition to the Documentary Arts.
Abstract chaos is every bit a part of telling the truth.
RSS Feed